The US Supreme Court recently upheld sections of the Patriot Act which make illegal any material support to a designated terrorist group, regardless of whether that support is intended (or has the effect) of supporting acts of violence.

Supreme Court upholds terrorism support law, Reuters, 21 June 2010.

One interesting effect of this, however, is to apparently render illegal efforts by NGOs and others to encourage armed groups to seek a peaceful, negotiated resolution of their grievances:

The US Supreme Court ruled last week that giving support to groups listed as terrorist is illegal, even if that support is designed to end violence.

The upshot is that work to end the world's ongoing armed conflicts through peaceful means - mediation support, or training in how to peacefully resolve disputes - comes with a risk of 15 years in prison.

The quiet diplomacy with IRA and loyalist paramilitaries which helped bring about the Good Friday agreement - meetings, training seminars and facilitated dialogues - would now be deemed a terrorist offence.

Those who engaged with the Sunni Awakening Councils in Iraq may, it turns out, have been breaking the law.

And those who are currently supporting the Afghan or Somali governments' policies of engagement with their sworn enemies could be at risk of prosecution.

This clarification of a law first adopted in 1996 and adjusted in the 2001 Patriot Act, is a big setback for American organisations well known for their work in mediation, such as the Carter Center, the American Friends Service Committee or the Conflict Management Group.

The long arm of US justice means that it extends to all of its residents and citizens (including those living abroad, like myself) and those organisations that receive US government funding.
Viewpoint: Ending wars peacefully just got harder, BBC News, 29 June 2010.

Presumably, even the Catholic Church--or at least the Community of Sant'Egidio, renowned for its mediation efforts in civil wars--would be open to potential prosecution.

Where should the line be drawn on these kind of issues?